The very best players in the world might still be close to the top chess engines. However, next year (not to mention the year after that and the year after that) computers will be even faster and chess programs will be better. Humans, barring genetic engineering and/or nanocomputer implants, are unlikely to improve appreciably.

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with this. I like having, not one but, several grandmasters on my laptop, willing to play against me and/or analyze my games at my leisure. 

hooperxxx you are a classic example of someone who has given up on humans.  Don't you see how dangerous setting limitations for ourselves is?  Kids do not do this nearly as much as Adults and look how eazy it is for kids to learn things.  I'll get you several sites that show that we humans are not living up to anything close to our potential. You don't have to look at them when I post them but I think you should.

tbirdtird wrote: Don't you see how dangerous setting limitations for ourselves is? ... I'll get you several sites that show that we humans are not living up to anything close to our potential.

---

I don't stipulate to your claim that I've "given up on humans." That sounds like dangerous luddite talk! Butlerian Jihad anyone? And, if by "not living up to our potential" you are alluding to that 10% of our brains business, that is parapsychological nonsense.

Don't give up on humans, this is just a beginning for human vs computer, human minds is better than computers, we can learn more information than computers, someday there will be humans who would beat chess programs. Maybe we are in struggling stage of beating computers, its like learning a bike, fail so many times but we will succeed at the end.

 

Nobody is perfect and even computers can't be consider as perfect. Nothing is impossible for humans, humans always makes it possible. If someone would try, it can be done.

I fail to see why it's such a big deal whether humans or computers are better at chess. Computers have been designed to perform complex calculations, so naturally they will be good games of logic once programmed correctly. Of course, humans are much better at appreciating the beauty and value of chess.

We shouldn't feel bad about this. If we can get a draw against a chess computer (playing at its best settings) then we've done well.

If we allowed dolphins to compete in the olympic games, would we feel bad about not winning the swimming events?

bendcat wrote:

Don't give up on humans, this is just a beginning for human vs computer, human minds is better than computers, we can learn more information than computers, someday there will be humans who would beat chess programs. Maybe we are in struggling stage of beating computers, its like learning a bike, fail so many times but we will succeed at the end.

 

Nobody is perfect and even computers can't be consider as perfect. Nothing is impossible for humans, humans always makes it possible. If someone would try, it can be done.

---

How will someone someday be able to beat a chess computer when soon every single possible move will have a solution forcing a win when you play against a computer. A computer can do that since it can process trillions of posibilities while there was never and never will be a human who can do that.

I believe in the power of human mind. 10% of human brain function can be 50%.

 

Right now,   human(10%)  vs  computers(100%).

 

Some humans can predict future, computers can only predict within the scope of their calculations. 

 

AM221, we live in modern world where we rely on computerize gadgets, like the calculator, rather than to compute it within our mind we choose to press it in the calculator. Less function of mind in modern world unlike the ancient time.

There are good side, it makes life easy for us.  

 

I like playing against computer, you can learn something. My chess computer program is pretty old(Titus) and have different levels of difficulty. I beat the computer very easily in the lower levels but I have never beat it at the top levels. I think a chess computer like this is a good way to see how you are improving your knowleged of chess, not for competition.

<jkrsok> and <batgirl> answered this topic sufficiently. As for the 10% use of the human brain, it is just an urban myth.

bendcat wrote:

I believe in the power of human mind. 10% of human brain function can be 50%.

Right now,   human(10%)  vs  computers(100%).

Some humans can predict future, computers can only predict within the scope of their calculations.

---

 No offense, but that was a steaming load of magical nonsense. In 10 years there will likely be 128bit notebooks with 16 cores on a single die and a 1 TB L3 cache, selling for $150.00 at Walmart. The days of humans beating computers in chess have gone the way of a "Steel drivin' man" being able to out-work a steam drill.  

 

...and the days of humans beating computers at Go are numbered.  

Hi guys,

Even the mighty computers cannot think through every possible move till checkmate.   That I think will be immpossible for some time. Maybe when they have self-building molecular level nano-circuitry with quantum-hyper fuzzy logical um, stuff. 

About the 10% of the brain thing allow me to clarify.  Humans do use all parts of there brain, however at any given time we are only using 10% (in that 10% of neurons in the brain fire at any one time).  To me that's the same thing as I said before, but some people need to be absolutly clear about things so this "correction" is for those people. It seems that more neurons firing at the same time causes Tonic-clonic seizures.  So in fact we are so weak that we can't even figure out how to use more then 10% of our brain at the same time without harming ourselves-pathetic we need to overcome this weakness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

Bring forth the Cyborgs!!!

 I was just thinking when I drive I only use 10% of my car.  I mean the airbags are sitting there doing nothing.  Sometimes I don't even turn on the radio or the headlights. The brakes I only use 5% of the time (if that) The horn I I use only 40% of the time.  I NEVER use the parking brake. Not to mention the aluminum bat I keep in the trunk for security (never used it).

But seriously, in the Future when we have a computer-brain interface, we will  be able to jack our "RAM" to the sky.  Nevermind the issue of fair competion because everyone will have computer enhanced brains, at least everyone that matters. I think the computer-brain symbiot surely has the edge over the just plain computer, but then who will have won?

 Hang on, Michael Bay is calling...

Boy oh boy. We as humans always have a hard time accepting our limitations and abilities. Who are we talking about here. Less than .0000000000001 % of all humans on the planet have a chance at beating a computer set only on master strength. Sure, there may be the occasional GM, which on the big scale, there aren't many of them that can compete with the computer but only with a handicapp.

A computer exists for the sake of doing something we can't, super computing. My guess this is where the computer got it's name. Let it go, there's nobody at this site that can beat chessmaster in a 40/2 sd 1 5sec delay. If so, you have my deepest respect because even looking at the lines Christiensen couldn't consistently beat the machine.

Wake up Neo, it's all been a dream...

<tbird> Once again you are incorrect. Your original statement on the 10% brain usage is as follows: "We also know from research that humans only use 10% of their brain power, so we CAN do a lot better."

At no time do you specify in that original statment about neurons. Then you come back here and provide a link, which in turn indicates in the same breathe that humans using 10% of the human brain is folklore, and not backed up by scientific research.

"Although folklore would have it that about 90% of the human brain is dormant^{[citation needed]}, this has proven scientifically unfounded^{[citation needed]}. The fact that ~10% of neurons in the brain fire at any one time is a possible source of this misconception^{[citation needed]}. (If a large percentage of the neurons were to fire at the same time, the result would be a Tonic-clonic seizure.)"

 

The 10% of neurons is even mentioned to be the source of all this foolishness.  I'm not a doctor, and clearly neither are you, but the link you provided simply says this is all nonsense.

ChessDweeb wrote:

Sure, there may be the occasional GM, which on the big scale, there aren't many of them that can compete with the computer but only with a handicapp... If so, you have my deepest respect because even looking at the lines Christiensen couldn't consistently beat the machine.

---

 That may well be the case for Chessmaster, but I don't care if your name is Garry Kasparov, Rybka 2.3 will rape you.

* (of course, I don't mean "you" personally. I mean you as in "one.")